Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: GtoRA2 on November 04, 2004, 12:19:49 PM
-
What makes City folk, Democrats and rural fold Republicans?
Going from the county picture they gets tossed around, the vast majortity of the country, space wise is conservative, and only the big cities really hold the liberals, are the people that different?
I guess I count as city folk, but I am not a democrat or a liberal, though I am closer to center them a few of my conservative friends.
Still, living in the bay area, I am surrounded by liberals.
What influences does city and non city life have to push you one way or another, what influences of city life push you? I have to say my biggest influences towards conservatism, were my parents.
But I have friends who’s parents are very conservative and they are full on almost fringe liberals so in those cases, what impact did the parents have?
-
I have always thought it was because cities are more about the "me" than the community. People are anonymous in cities, but when you get out in the rural areas, everyone knows you or of you.
This seems to make people more polite, more oriented towards family, church and community, but please realize that I am using a broad brush to explain the phenomnena, not to knock anyone.
-
citiy folk are more liberal and accepting of others, wanting to live amidst many different cultures.
-
Morals and lifestyle along with enviroment shape influences on political affiliation.....another life fact...young and poor make good democrats...older with assets make good republicans.
When you start with nothing, work hard and build your own, the last thing you want is interference from the government or other groups wanting your stuff for free.:)
-
JB
I do not think people in cities can be called caring of others and tolerant, they may make noises at bars or cocktail parties about it, but it is bull****, people in cities are not very friendly in my experience. Your not trying to say all rural folk are bigots are you?
The smaller the town the nicer people are.
-
bigots, not at all.
tolerant in the city, yes.
caring in the city, no.
i will use my own sister for example... she wanted to live near the lively east side lifestyle (east side in milwaukee is where all the hippies, homosexuals, and other "alternate" lifestyles live).
she and her husband bought a house in a questionably neighborhood because it was all they could afford, and stay close to that area. she and her husband have many many homosexual friends, her bridesmaid was lesbian, his best man gay.
all of their friends live in that area, to be closer to their peers, and in an area that is more tolerant of their lifestyle choices.
yes us in the farther out suburabs are nice, and some are tolerant, some are even of "alternate lifestyle". but not nearly the ammount as on milwaukee's east side, and we out here are nto nearly as lively. gas stations close at 11, so on.
just my observations.
-
Born and raised in the city, moved to the suburbs in a bay side community at the age of 17.
Anyone that tells you there's a difference between suburban and city people is a damn liar.
Each area has their share of intolerant *******s where ignorance drives their bigotry, and nice people who will be courteous, friendly, and helpful.
-SW
-
City: Where the terrorists will ignite a nuclear bomb in our lifetime.
Suburbs/Country: Where we will strip your dead bodies of jewelry and food after the attack due to the fact that the infrastructure will be collapsed.
:D
-
JB73
That sounds like acceptance more then tolerance.
Tolerance is putting up with something you do not agree with or are not sure about.
How tolerant is your sister of people with strong Christian values that think the homosexual life style is bad?
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
How tolerant is your sister of people with strong Christian values that think the homosexual life style is bad?
she choses to not involve me in social situations where her friends are involved.
-
What makes City folk, Democrats and rural folk Republicans?
Numerous studies have shown that overcrowding of mammals causes antisocial behavior.
-
Suburbs don't count as "country". Most suburban dwellers are just ex-cityfolk who finally figured out that cities are smelly, dirty, cramped, crowded, expensive, and generally just SUCK. The people left living in the cities are, for the most part, those who can't afford to move out, minus a few downtown-dwelling ultra rich people.
Rural and small-town america is a far cry from surburban america.
J_A_B
-
JB73
So your a christian that does not aprove of gayness?
-
Well, I call anything outside of a city suburban... If you want to get down to the nitty gritty, it is rural.
Most people lived off of fishing, chartering, crabbing, catching oysters and clams, etc. When I moved away from there, they were still fighting a Safeway that has been trying to get land there for the past 3 years. Blockbuster almost didn't get put in, last year.
-SW
-
Morals and lifestyle along with enviroment shape influences on political affiliation.....another life fact...young and poor make good democrats...older with assets make good republicans.
I'm sure the morals part is some superiority swipe against the democrats, but lets remember the shift of the "solid south" to Republican started when JFK and LBJ sided with the Negroes during the civil rights era. Pretty clean, easy to identify break with support. Nothing says morality quite like Jim Crow. Chicago, which had no shortage of racial tension at the time including MLK's visit to Cicero, stayed Democratic because of the Daley machine and the diversity - racial and otherwise - of the community.
Charon
-
Charon
Are you trying to say the repulican party of today is imoral and the party of bigots?
I think you are wrong, I do not think either party tolerate bigotry anymore, though them Democrats like to use it when it is not waranted.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
JB73
So you're a christian that does not aprove of gayness?
been stated many times here. not going to get into it again, got me almost banned last time i talked about it.
-
Well I am not going to go search for your older posts, a simple yes I a christian think Homosexuality is not good would have been fine.
But since you want to be vague, I gues we are done having what was a civil conversation.
-
Are you trying to say the repulican party of today is imoral and the party of bigots?
No, just pointing out that when Rude claims some sort of moral superority for Republican ideals (kind of hard not to see that as being what he implied) like anything else, it gets a bit more complicated.
Clearly there are plenty of self-serving amoral people in the world -- republican, democratic and in between. Some even think they are saints :) The same goes for rural and city folk. Small towns are great places to live and vist -- if you happen to fit in with the local crowd. If not it can be a hell on earth, and the ability to get lost in a big city becomes a blessing.
BTW, I've met plenty of truly friendly people in the City. I've also met my share of people in small towns who are great friends to your face. People are people.
Charon
-
Ah yes, you are right on that.... just making sure about the bigot thing.
I really do not think either party has room for nor tolerates it anymore.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Well I am not going to go search for your older posts, a simple yes I a christian think Homosexuality is not good would have been fine.
But since you want to be vague, I gues we are done having what was a civil conversation.
i just really dont want this to become a debate on that issue, for i will not take part in a dicussion of it, thats all.
see still civil, still answering concise, just dont wanna talk about gheys LOL
-
This is not about the gays, what I was trying to find out is if your sister is tolerant of people who do not share who view of gays.
Tolerence should go both ways.
-
i'm trying to figer this out.
if you don't "like" gays, you a bigot.
if you don't like people who don't like gays , your ok.
sounds a little self rightous.
-
simple, city folk have to much time on there hands, and are generally completly removed for reality. rural folk on the other hand, spend all there time working, and are relativly removed from reality. its the rurals who life relativly close (within 45 minutes) of a big city who have the greatest hold on reality, and therefore dont bother voting...
im crazy
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
This is not about the gays, what I was trying to find out is if your sister is tolerant of people who do not share who view of gays.
Tolerence should go both ways.
i know what you were going for, but bring up religion and homosexuality on this board, be prepared for a trainwreck of a thread LOL
-
Originally posted by john9001
i'm trying to figer this out.
if you don't "like" gays, you a bigot.
if you don't like people who don't like gays , your ok.
sounds a little self rightous.
Read my sig. ;)
-
Well they're right on the religion part....fundamentalism sucks no matter what banner it's under.
J_A_B
-
Cities = democrat = bleeding harts and/or wanting a hand out
Rural = republican = I can do it so should you
-
JB
It is not even about that,
What it is about is you said you think your sister is tolerant, I think she is accepting.
If she were tolerant should would not have a problem with either case.
Is that so?
It does not have to be about religion or anything else, it is about what tolerance means, and I think many people get it wrong. You do not have to like something you tolerate. If you like something as a mater of fact you are not tolerating it at all, you are accepting it.
-
Originally posted by Zippatuh
Cities = democrat = bleeding harts and/or wanting a hand out
Rural = republican = I can do it so should you
A quick snip...
http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/)
In decades past, increasing Republican dominance of the House and Senate would have meant more fiscal discipline. But Republicans increasingly dominate the states that are net drains on Federal taxes—the Southern and Great Plains states—while fading in the coastal states that produce a disproportionate share of federal revenue. (It's Republicans, not Democrats, who are sucking on the federal teat.) What Amity Shlaes quaintly identified in today's Financial Times as the "southern culture of tax cutting" has been married to the southern culture of failing to generate wealth and the southern culture of depending on federal largesse. The offspring is an unsightly deficit monster.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
simple, city folk have to much time on there hands, and are generally completly removed for reality.
Just the opposite, I have lived in the city and away from the city. In the city they work alot more to pay the higher prices for everything. I remember coming back to Boston after being in Florida for a year, my brother scared the life out of me on the drive home, I could not believe how they drive in the city! Down south it was laid back, you took your time getting from place to place. The city is very fast paced and stressful, it is hard to come from a country setting and get used to it. What that has to do with democrat and republican is beyond me, but there are alot of minorities in the big cities, and Charon pointed out an early difference between the parties. That is not as prevalent as it was then, but still exists
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
A quick snip...
http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/)
Good read
-
Originally posted by -MZ-
A quick snip...
http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/ (http://www.slate.com/id/2109203/)
In decades past, increasing Republican dominance of the House and Senate would have meant more fiscal discipline. But Republicans increasingly dominate the states that are net drains on Federal taxes—the Southern and Great Plains states—while fading in the coastal states that produce a disproportionate share of federal revenue. (It's Republicans, not Democrats, who are sucking on the federal teat.) What Amity Shlaes quaintly identified in today's Financial Times as the "southern culture of tax cutting" has been married to the southern culture of failing to generate wealth and the southern culture of depending on federal largesse. The offspring is an unsightly deficit monster.
Hmmm… I’m not sure really how to take this.
This seems to be much more of an editorial than factual representation. I can author a paragraph that says that the democrats are taking the tax money and not the republicans but without having data to back that up it holds about as much weight as this article does.
The article was defiantly biased and not written for statistical analysis rather an editorial put together to fan the flames of disgust towards the election results.
If you have something that actually shows the amount of assistance each state receives on average from the federal government compared to the amount of tax revenue generated from said state would go a long way.
I’m going to disagree here based on the absence of fact and/or substance. Please prove me wrong with statistics and not editorials.
I may have missed something; if I did, feel free to point it out.
-
I think its really much simpler, and comes down to priorities and money.
Large Cities and urban areas are much more dependant upon expensive Infrastructure. Roads, sewers, water-treatment plants, Fire & Police departments, etc.
Whereas rural and small-town America is much less dependant upon these sorts of capital-draining expenditures.
Because of their dependance upon this infrastructure, city folks are more willing to foot the bill through increased taxes, and tend to look to politicians who promise them new and creative ways to fund their needs.
While the rural types tend to be more self-sufficient, and would rather you just leave them alone to save or spend their hard-earned incomes on things of higher priority to themselves. They tend to favor politicians who espouse minimalist government and reduced taxes.
I left out all the emotional "touchy-feely" issues as I don't believe they really have any bearing upon this topic.
CptA
-
I've been to New York City three times; never have I met nicer people, city or small town.
I've been to Pittsburgh once, and much of the city is like a small town. Very nice people here, too.
My point? Both of these cities are extremely Democratic.
The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that the liberals tend to care about less fortunate people, such as the homeless and the sick. Conservatives tend to care about people that are close to them, as well as their money.
I know a few of you are gonna give me the "back your BS up" runaround, but I've been living in Tomball for 11 years, and nowhere else is the difference between Democrats and Republicans more magnified.
It's a town of about 10,000, about 50/50 Democrats and Republicans. This city's Democrats are like those of NYC: they put the less fortunate at a high priority, and don't mind about paying tax because they know it's *usually* going for a good cause.
The Republicans here are what I call "hardcore". You could easily call these people Confederate Survivalists. They do *not* like blacks or Mexicans, nor do they give a damn about less fortunate people. If they had it their way, they'd kick the "colored" people out of our schools and neighborhoods, and they'd have the homeless and poor people killed. And they care way too much about money. It's as if their paychecks are extra family members.
Also, if it weren't for the Democrats in this town, we'd have a highway bypass that would've killed the economy. We'd have also had an Asphalt Plant about three blocks from my house (and the surrounding blocks).
This place was terrible when Republicans were in complete control. We had a very poor sewer/water system (the water had such low pressure that showers would usually take about 30 minutes, even with a high-pressure shower head). Our roads were also in terrible condition, along with our schools and public service buildings. Along with that, our fat-ass of a mayor wouldn't sell open land for development.
It's a really nice place now, due in no small part to the Democratic majority (it's a small lead, but Dems are still the majority). The city's developed a lot since the Republicans lost the majority vote. In recent years, we've gotten our roads redone, schools and public services have received more funding, and land has opened for development. In just the past year, two shopping centers have been built, along with more than two subdivisions.
The city's finally earning more revenue, since our Mayor hasn't been able to squander money.
Well, this was my story of the difference between Democrats and Republicans where I live. Of course plenty of you aren't going to like it, but it's the truth.
Oh, and the part about Republicans being more "fiscally responsible" is a bunch of BS as far as I'm concerned. Tomball's never had this much tax revenue, and our services are functioning better than ever before.
P.S.
Don't get me wrong about Republicans up North --- they are much different from the ones where I live.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
The main difference I see between liberals and conservatives is that the liberals tend to care about less fortunate people, such as the homeless and the sick. Conservatives tend to care about people that are close to them, as well as their money.
I disagree with this characterization.
I believe the liberal view point is to give the man a fish where the conservative viewpoint is to teach a man to fish.
As I see it, the conservative philosophy is that when one works to raise himself from poverty, one improves himself in many more ways than just economically.
When government programs become the driving force of one's economic well being, his desire to rise further is diminshed.
Like feeding the bears at Yellowstone, the bears come to expect free food and when it does not come, they raid campgrounds and sift through garbage at the dump. If they are never fed, the dine on venison, elk and wild berries, and proudly live the way bears are supposed to live.
-
Yea.. the liberal philosophy is to give a man a fish, wheras the capitalist philosophy is to teach a man to fish, and make him give all the fish he catches to you.
-
>>What makes City folk, Democrats and rural fold Republicans?
<<
Lead poisoning.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I disagree with this characterization.
I believe the liberal view point is to give the man a fish where the conservative viewpoint is to teach a man to fish.
As I see it, the conservative philosophy is that when one works to raise himself from poverty, one improves himself in many more ways than just economically.
When government programs become the driving force of one's economic well being, his desire to rise further is diminshed.
Like feeding the bears at Yellowstone, the bears come to expect free food and when it does not come, they raid campgrounds and sift through garbage at the dump. If they are never fed, the dine on venison, elk and wild berries, and proudly live the way bears are supposed to live.
Philosophy's got nothing to do with it. When somebody's born into poverty and is literally raised on the street with no education, there is NO WAY he can get a job to better himself. That's why these people need help, but many people like you refuse to listen to the truth.
The truth is that it usually isn't their fault. If they could get a job, they would. Labeling them as "lazy" is just taking the easy way out. You know just as well as I do that these people really do need help, but like many others, you're selfish and lack compassion.
"I disagree with this characterization."
Okay, smart guy, have you lived in Tomball for 11 years? Thought so. Come live here for 11 years before you claim that these people aren't as bad as I say they are.
And what exactly makes you think that Democrats don't work to raise themselves from poverty? It's usually the Republicans who are born into wealthy families. And it's those same wealthy families that are getting the tax cuts, which should be going to the lower-income families that really need more money.
Don't make it like you know **** about anything. I've been living in this house for 7 years, with just enough money to get food every other week, get the bills paid, and have a small bundle of cash for things that I want, like a TV and a computer. I've gone two days with eating just a burrito and two cans of Ginger Ale because we didn't have the money to get more food. And finally, we got some promising stock money with what little we had, and it's going to pay off soon.
Life for us isn't the way you think it is. Open your little mind before you open your mouth.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
When somebody's born into poverty and is literally raised on the street with no education, there is NO WAY he can get a job to better himself.
by "born into poverty" you mean yo momma gots 5 kids by 5 men wot don pay her no money?
by "no education" you mean you too cool to stay in public school?
-
Wouldn't be an *******, would you?
So many stupid people, so little time.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
Philosophy's got nothing to do with it. .....these losers can't cope...No chance... Open your little mind before you open your mouth.
You read my words but you did not understand my thoughts.
Okay, smart guy, have you lived in Tomball for 11 years? Thought so. Come live here for 11 years before you claim that these people aren't as bad as I say they are.
It seems you have a low opinion of "these people"
The mindset that says we need to take care of "these people" has created much of the social and economic problems which exist in these areas. Treat people like they can't take care of themselves and it becomes a self-fufilling prophecy.
-
You definately didn't get my post. Either that, or you're twisting my words to make me look like a jerk.
I was saying that you don't know just how bad the CONSERVATIVES in this area are.
-
you kept saying "these people"
"these people need help"
"You know just as well as I do that these people really do need help"
"...before you claim that these people aren't as bad as I say they are"
Even after your edit you refer to conservatives as "those people"
Your rant was not clear at all if the first set of "these people" referred to "these people" and the later "these people"s referred to "those people"
You will please note no where did I call you lacking intelligence, compassion or vision, as you did to me. Your debating skills could stand some polish.
-
After reading both of my posts, it's very clear to me that I was talking about how bad the conservatives are in this area.
Seems like you're still putting words in my mouth.
And I never said that you were lacking intelligence or vision. Just compassion. You can't possibly think that I was insulting your intelligence with that "smart guy" rip...
-
Originally posted by Fruda
After reading both of my posts, it's very clear to me that I was talking about how bad the conservatives are in this area.
Seems like you're still putting words in my mouth.
And I never said that you were lacking intelligence or vision. Just compassion. You can't possibly think that I was insulting your intelligence with that "smart guy" rip...
No, not the smart guy rip... this one:
Originally posted by Fruda
Open your little mind before you open your mouth.
sorry to be showing you what you wrote.
-
Ok then, forgot about that one.
So I did insult your intelligence --- You completely disregarded the fact that I've lived in this town for 11 years, instead saying (in so many words) that I don't know what I'm talking about.
-
I do not dispute the time you have spent at your current address.
My attempt at having a discussion with you was on a philosophical rather than a personal level. I offered an original thought with the bear analogy, and you brought anger, insult and party line talking points into the discussion, although you did not do a very effective job of it.
-
Seems to me that was the whole point of doing what I did.
-
To prove you lived in Houston you went through all that? You could have just said "Go Rockets"
-
Yeah, that *always* works.
People who've lived like I do don't tend to care about "being polite" to people who'd stab you in the back if they had the chance, if you know what I mean.
-
No one from Houston will admit it, so Fruda is a poseuer.
-
Heh, good one.
I like the Rockets, but I don't *like* them. They really need to figure out what the hell they're doing.
-
Hilarious rant. (http://www.****thesouth.com/)
(Warning: foul language) <----- I did that for you Skuzzy! :aok
er... yer gonna need to replace the **** with, you know, that other word.
-
lazy red people (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)
-
I'd rather shoot myself in the foot, than move out of town.
-
I don’t know that all “conservatives” were born into wealthy families.
The Martinez family, mother and I, started out life with a trash bag full of baby clothes and an old Plymouth. The first house I can remember living in had lawn furniture in the living room, there was only a stand up shower so baths were given to me in the sink, and the bugs were bad enough that I was scared to sleep in my own room.
By the time I reached grade school mom had a steady job at the IRS, received a HUD loan to buy her first house, and had me in the school lunch program.
In 1990 when I graduated high school the house bought on the HUD loan was now being rented out and I had a partial scholarship to college.
I now have 3 rental properties of my own and my mother goes to Cancun every year after Thanksgiving.
Did we get help, yes, was it permanent no. Was the plan for us to become self sufficient, of course, and through hard work and time it happened.
Wanting to give someone a lift up is different from being willing to continually give someone a hand out. I’ve seen too many people that started out with nothing end up with their own businesses and making it by themselves. I’ve seen friends that got laid off move to different areas to support their family and find work.
Being conservative doesn’t mean that no one gets help it means that no one gets help indefinitely. It means giving someone the ability to make the hard decisions, nothing in life is easy. As for the tax cuts, everyone got one and the people who benefited the most where the middle class and below. Anything else is propaganda for the left.
There are still problems with poverty and how we work with the poverty line. However, it’s not possible to help 100% of the population all of the time.
Remember it’s the right to pursue happiness, not the right to happiness. If it means retooling or moving then that’s the price. Life is about hard decisions and if you’re counting on someone else to guide you through it or hold your hand then you’re in the wrong country.
-
People in big cities are used to having the government tax others and give them stuff, like housing and mass-tansit.
People in the country are used to having to fend and provide for themselves.
A gross oversimplification? Of course. But still true to a significant extent.
-
exactly true edbert... the people in cities see a problem like homeless or garbage on the street or muggings and they demand that government do something about it so that they won't have to interact with these people...
"For the love of humanity... get these friggin people out of my sight!"
lazs
-
"Life is about hard decisions and if you’re counting on someone else to guide you through it or hold your hand then you’re in the wrong country."
I agree, religion is a tad overrated.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
People in big cities are used to having the government tax others and give them stuff, like housing and mass-tansit.
hmmm, interesting, seeming they produce much more tax revenue, ya figure they work more?
People in the country are used to having to fend and provide for themselves.
Like a farm subsidy?
A gross oversimplification? Of course. But still true to a significant extent.
lol, more like BS, nice try tho
-
a farm subsiderary is to everyones advantage if you recall the dust bowl say.
wages are higher in large population centers... that may not be because they produce more tho... it is cost of living... if an apartment that no self respecting raccoon would live in goes for 2k a month in the city then wages have to reflect that. A clerk is a clerk and a garbage man is a garbage man... rural ones probly get more done for less and live in huge homes with acreage that cost half what a slum apartment in the city rents for.
lazs
-
lol, that post is one example of why I love Laz!
Laz, you slay me......
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
People in big cities are used to having the government tax others and give them stuff, like housing and mass-tansit.
hmmm, interesting, seeming they produce much more tax revenue, ya figure they work more?
"Earn more" as in cash value that is taxable, no doubt about it.
People in the country are used to having to fend and provide for themselves.
Like a farm subsidy?
..and without farmers/ranchers what would the 8 million New Yorkers eat, after they finished off all the subway rats that is? Don't get me wrong, I see farm subsidies much like I see all other forms of welfare, and the majority of the farm subsidies went to corporate farms not family farms. ted Turner got millions in farm subsidies and Bush should have used his veto on that disasterous bill. Bring back the free market baby!
A gross oversimplification? Of course. But still true to a significant extent.
lol, more like BS, nice try tho
Certainly true if you look at it over multiple generations. Farming and ranching is becoming bug-business and corporate. 100 years ago that was not the case at all, and many of us who don't think that calling someone a "cowboy" is an insult still have that make-up in our blood. All I ask for it to keep what is mine, I don't want any of yours.
-
farm subsideraries are there so that farmers don't just grow the most profitable crops and let the city boys starve and the land get played out.... It makes no difference if they are paid to a family farm or a corporate one. the result is what is wanted here..
Food does not grow in resteraunts.
high wages are an incentive... subsidy if you will, for people to live in rats nests called cities where no self respecting human being would live if he were not rewarded to do so.
lazs
-
Laz, will you marry me?
-
uh...thank you very much for the offer nuke but.. I have had my share of marriages and, tho they were all to women.... I still think I can safely say that I see even less chance of sucess with a male. Are you rich? no... nevermind... forget I said that..
lazs
-
Anyone on this list live in Madison?
_____________________
17 Main St
Madison, WI 53703
US
Registrar: DOTSTER
Domain Name: ****THESOUTH.COM
Created on: 04-NOV-04
Expires on: 04-NOV-05
Last Updated on: 11-NOV-04
Administrative, Technical Contact:
Swift, Jonathan admin@****thesouth.com
17 Main St
Madison, WI 53703
US
608-555-5555
Domain servers in listed order:
NS81.PAIR.COM
NS0000.NS0.COM
End of Whois Information
-
well, I understand..
I get more laughs out of you and Nash than any others here I can think of.
You make your points like no other can. You hit watermelon out of the ballpark most of the time.
-
You got a little something on your mouth there Nuke.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You got a little something on your mouth there Nuke.
-SW
and you have something around your anus.
-
Uhm... no thanks.
-SW
-
My sister and brother-in-law have to work a combined 16 hours a day, and have enough money left after bills and expenses to buy a few things that they want.
Remember, wages are higher in the city, but so are taxes and bills. Things also tend to be more expensive.
It's not anywhere near the truth when you say that city-dwellers have it easy.
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
You got a little something on your mouth there Nuke.
-SW
He has a thing for people who preach about socialism.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
It's not anywhere near the truth when you say that city-dwellers have it easy.
I certainly didn't say that and did not mean to imply it. The truth is almost everyone works hard; whether you toil in the soil or get your life sucked out of you under a flourescent light in some corporate jail-cube. The only ones that don't are the leeches of the welfare state, you know the ones who thought the safety net was a hammock or the rich bastids like Ted Turner who took millions of Federal tax dollars to subsidize his agricultural write-offs.
YTou are right about the wages/bills part, that is largely why the point is skewed when you compare real dollar values of income between some corn-farmer in Kansas to a secretary in Manhatten.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
and without farmers/ranchers what would the 8 million New Yorkers eat
And vice versa, w/o people buying it, why grow it?
Don't get me wrong, I see farm subsidies much like I see all other forms of welfare
I don't, even though I pointed out the subsidy, I have no problem with it, I feel farmers are the backbone of the country and I do not mind helping them at all, my fear is that it does become corporate. I would rather see it go to the small farmer than a corporation. I feel that if the trucking industry used biodiesel, it would be a huge shot in the arm to the farmers.
and many of us who don't think that calling someone a "cowboy" is an insult still have that make-up in our blood. All I ask for it to keep what is mine, I don't want any of yours.
Right, and people who put in long ours in the city and generate all that money feel the same way.
-
yep... I didn't get that from eberts post either... everyone works hard. I believe that quality of life is not even comparable tho. I have never been in a big city that I would like to live in for more than a week. filthy, claustrophobic, noisy and unfriendly is all I see when I am there.... even in nice spots like the parks people don't seem happy or friendly...
beats me how anyone could get used to it.
lazs
-
I live in Phoenix but don't consider it to be a "big" city type of place.
-
Phoenix is a larger city than Boston. :D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Phoenix is a larger city than Boston. :D
So is Jacksonville, Fl. Much bigger I might add.
-
Phoenix is the 5th most populated US city. Houston is 3rd I think.
Go red.
-
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/most_pop_cities_usa.htm
-
outdated.
Phoenix is 5 now and we are red, just like Houston and Dallas.
-
You are reading cities proper
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
You are reading cities proper
isn't that what normal people would use as a definition of most populated cities?
It's just a fact that Phoenix is the 5th largest US city.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
isn't that what normal people would use as a definition of most populated cities?
It's just a fact that Phoenix is the 5th largest US city.
Like I said, Jacksonville is larger too, But if you take the area that is Phoenix and put it on top of Boston, Boston is much more populated
-
But Phoenix has a higher population than all but 4 other US cities. No way around that fact. And Phoenix is red.
-
But area wise Boston is much more populated, and it's blue
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
But area wise Boston is much more populated, and it's blue
lol
Area-wise, the whole country is red.
-
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/United%20States%20metropolitan%20area
-
sorry, not going to try to divine your thoughts based on a link.
Can you not argue a point on your own?
Fact is, Phoenix is a larger city ( both in area and population) than Boston, and we are Red.
Houston is much larger than Phoenix in population and area, and they are Red.
Dallas is much larger in area and population than Boston, and they are Red.
-
No soup for you Nuke, read it and weep
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
No soup for you Nuke, read it and weep
so you agree that Phoenix is the 5th most populated city?
-
I thought people in Boston were supposed to be smart.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I thought people in Boston were supposed to be smart.
Well, it's hard to compete with those 138 IQ's in Arizona
-
well, that's true.
-
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=314&Topic2id=90
-
Originally posted by Edbert
People in big cities are used to having the government tax others and give them stuff, like housing and mass-tansit.
People in the country are used to having to fend and provide for themselves.
Seems the other way around (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)
-
Originally posted by stiehl
Seems the other way around (http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html)
That link has been posted here about half a dozen time just today, give it a rest. Besides, adjust those numbers for tax dollars as a percentage of income and the results will be completely different.
-
Originally posted by Fruda
This place was terrible when Republicans were in complete control. We had a very poor sewer/water system (the water had such low pressure that showers would usually take about 30 minutes, even with a high-pressure shower head). Our roads were also in terrible condition, along with our schools and public service buildings. Along with that, our fat-ass of a mayor wouldn't sell open land for development.
1) All of Houston's road's are horrible. The only road construction going on that's worth a damn is I-10. That's because it's being done by private contractors, with stiff time penalties, and not by government employees.
2) I live over in Katy, and it's doing great. We have republican leadership. More & more schools in KISD are being opened constantly. New shopping centers open constantly. Katy Mills was built awhile back, and it's more popular than ever. Fry & Mason road are now so busy they both need more lanes. New neighborhoods are being built insanely fast... maybe you should move to my part of town? :)
3) Never have had utility problems.
4) Can't re-iterate this enough. The only thing worse than Houston roads... are Lousiana roads :) But at least we're consistent and it's all over the damn place :eek:
-
I completely agree with you on the Houston and Katy issues.
Katy is a very, very nice place... A little too nice, if you know what I mean.
Still, Tomball's really boomed since it's become a Democratic majority. It's actually become a rather nice place.
Oh yeah, and Bill White (Houston's Mayor) is doing a very good job. He's already done more in his first year and a half than Lee Brown did in his two terms. They're both Democrats, by the way, although Brown was an idiot.
Lee Brown --- Budget-Bleeder and Ambassador to Africa (mind you, he spent city money when he took all those over-seas trips).
-
Thank God they took Lee Brown's face off of the Welcome to Houston sign at Bush Intercontinental. That was a good day.
I'm pretty happy with Bill White so far :)
Katy is pretty nice, but thankfully it's still not pricey like Sugerland. :aok